uranium from africa

8/3/2019 Uranium From Africa

1/105

June 2011


2/105

1

Uranium from Africa

Mitigation of uranium mining impactson society and environment

by industry and governments

WISE & SOMO

Amsterdam, June 2011


3/105

Uranium from Africa

2

Colophon

Uranium from AfricaMitigation of Uranium mining impacts on society andenvironment by industry and governmentsJune 2011

Author: Fleur Scheele (WISE)With contributions from Joseph Wilde-Ramsing & Esther de Haan(SOMO)Layout design: Annelies VlasblomISBN: 978-90-71284-82-3

Financed by:This publication has been made possible through funding from theDutch Ministry of Environment (VROM) and Cordaid. The content ofthis publication is the sole responsibility of WISE and SOMO and canin no way be taken to reflect the views of the Dutch government.

Published by:

World Information Service on Energy (WISE) Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen (SOMO)

Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations

World Information Service on EnergyWISE-AmsterdamP.O. Box 596361040 LC AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: +31 (20) 612 6368Email:[email protected]:www.antenna.nl/wise

Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale OndernemingenCentre for Research on Multinational CorporationsSarphatistraat 301018 GL AmsterdamThe NetherlandsTel: + 31 (20) 6391291E-mail: [email protected]:www.somo.nl

This document is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivateWorks 2.5 License. To view a copy of thislicense visit:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.antenna.nl/wisehttp://www.antenna.nl/wisehttp://www.antenna.nl/wisehttp://www.somo.nl/http://www.somo.nl/http://www.somo.nl/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5http://www.somo.nl/http://www.antenna.nl/wisemailto:[email protected]


4/105

3

Contents1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Research Question and Methodology ........................................................................................ 6

3. About WISE and SOMO.............................................................................................................. 10

4. Energy, Uranium, and Mining .................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Nuclear Energy in the Future Energy Mix ..................................................................................... 11

4.2 Uranium Resources and Demand ................................................................................................ 14

4.3 Uranium Mining, Milling, and Associated Risks ............................................................................ 21

5. Namibia ........................................................................................................................................ 31

5.1 Industry response ......................................................................................................................... 32

5.1.1 Rio Tinto ........................................................................................................................................ 32

5.1.2 Paladin Energy Limited ................................................................................................................. 38

5.1.3 AREVA .......................................................................................................................................... 42

5.2 Government Response ................................................................................................................. 44

5.3 NGO Response ............................................................................................................................. 46

5.4 Namibia Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 50

6. South Africa ................................................................................................................................. 53

6.1 Industry Response ........................................................................................................................ 57

6.1.1 First Uranium ................................................................................................................................ 57

6.1.2 AngloGold Ashanti ........................................................................................................................ 66


6.3 NGO response .............................................................................................................................. 71

6.4 South Africa Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 74

7. Central African Republic ............................................................................................................ 75

7.1 Industry Response ........................................................................................................................ 767.1.1 AREVA .......................................................................................................................................... 76


7.3 NGO Response ............................................................................................................................. 81

7.4 Conclusions Central African Republic .......................................................................................... 83

8. Canada and Australia ................................................................................................................. 84

9. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 88

10. Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... 91

11. Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................. 92

12. Literature ..................................................................................................................................... 94

Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................ 97

Appendix II ......................................................................................................................................... 102Appendix III ........................................................................................................................................ 103


5/105

Uranium from Africa

4

Abstract

Uranium mining operations have high impacts on environment and society, and can lead to

deterioration of health of workers and communities. Uranium mining activities are increasing in Africa,where mining is not always strictly regulated and controlled. Mitigation of negative impacts from

uranium mines by national governments and international mining companies can have a positive effect

on society and environment.

This report assesses what mitigation measures governments and industry are taking in Namibia,

South Africa, and the Central African Republic. Practices are compared with Canada and Australia,

where regulation is more strict.


6/105

Introduction 5

1. Introduction

Uranium, a natural resource which is used for nuclear energy production, is extracted from the earth in

uranium mines located in various countries worldwide. Nearly twenty per cent of the worlds mined

uranium is produced in Africa, and this percentage is expected to increase in the future. As uranium

mining is associated with various negative externalities such as environmental pollution and

deterioration of health, intensified uranium production in Africa can lead to a wide variety of hazards.

Preventing and managing the multiple hazards is a complicated task which requires specific

knowledge, efforts, and financial means available in all responsible stakeholders. It can be questioned

if all of these factors are available in the African states which are allowing uranium mining operations

on their land.

This report analyses what mitigation measures are taken by multinational uranium mining companiesand African governments to minimise any negative impacts on environment and society caused by

uranium mining operations.

This report is precedented by a March 2011 study entitled Radioactive Revenues. Financial Flows

Between Uranium Mining Companies and African Governments, by SOMO authors Albert ten Kate

and Joseph Wilde-Ramsing, published by SOMO and WISE. The two reports are supplementary:

together, they cover general policies, economic, environmental, social, and labour-related aspects of

uranium mining operations in Africa.

The reports intend to create awareness among stakeholders about the impacts of their decisions on

energy production, to call for responsible behaviour in energy producers, to emphasise the importanceof increased awareness about the commodity chain, and to inform civil society and governments about

the relevant issues.


7/105

Uranium from Africa

6

2. Research Question and Methodology

Uranium mining is inevitably associated with hazards. If these remain unaddressed and mismanaged,

the negative externalities1

neglected, uranium mining invariably has great negative impacts onsocieties and ecosystems. Maximum control, proper government action, strong laws and stringent law

enforcement, and responsible corporate behaviour can never entirely prevent the occurrence of

negative impacts on environment and people. Uranium mining leads to permanent environmental

damage.

This having said, it is a fact that uranium mining is taking place, in many countries around the world.

Industries and governments are still actively involved in uranium mining, and the demand for uranium

is still real. Uranium mining activities around the world as well as in Africa have intensified greatly in

the past few years. Notably the African countries have been receiving much attention from the mining

industry: in Niger, Mauritania, Zambia, Malawi, Gabon, Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia, the Central

African Republic, and more countries, uranium exploration and/or exploitation projects are currentlyunder development. The willingness of various African countries to meet industry demands due to

their national hunger for economic development, the lack of strict mining and environmental laws, and

the very limited regulatory inspections and law enforcement are all factors that might make African

countries more attractive to the multinational mining companies. As long as this is the reality we live in,

it is our hope that uranium is being mined in the most responsible way possible.

We wanted to evaluate todays practices in the mining sector in Africa, and compare these to the

industrys practices as they are carried out in Australia and Canada. As both countries have strict laws

and proper monitoring systems, they might provide less experienced African countries with a good

example of how to manage uranium mining operations. This having said, it can be observed that

despite good laws, a strong judicial system, powerful NGOs, and democratic governments, uranium

mining practices still threaten indigenous societies and natural protected areas in Canada and

Australia. We were wondering: if tailings dams still leak in these countries, and if indigenous people

are still marginalised even here, then how are the negative impacts being minimised in Africa?

The democratic states of South Africa, Namibia, and the Central African Republic, do they have well-

organised and knowledgeable civil society groups that can monitor uranium mining practices? Do they

have well-equipped labs with radiation specialists who get the resources and the liberty to follow the

industry critically? Where does the money go who is benefiting from these mines? Just the

international shareholders of the multinational corporations, along with some government officials? Or

do all citizens benefit from the revenues from the mines?

What does the industry do after closure of the mines? Are companies saving money fordecommissioning of the mine? And for monitoring of groundwater, soil, and air, decades after the mine

is abandoned? We wanted to analyse various African operations, and assess their Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) and environmental assets.

1 Negative externalities are the costs associated with an agents activities, which the agent herself does not pay for. Instead,

society pays for the costs to remove the negative impact of the agents activities. Example: a supermarket selling a productto a consumer will leave the consumer, after consumption of the article, with the waste of the packaging. The supermarketwill not pay for disposal of that waste: either the consumer pays for disposal service, or, if the packaging is thrown on thestreet, it is society that pays for disposal.


8/105

Research Question and Methodology 7

The questions lead to our main research question:

What do governments and industry do to mitigate the negative impacts caused by uranium

mining?

With a focus on six mines in three African countries: Namibia, South Africa, and the Central AfricanRepublic. Australia and Canada were used as a reference.

As there are probably hundreds of international uranium exploration and/or exploitation companies

active in Africa, working in at least ten African countries, it was impossible to assess them all. Niger, a

major uranium producing country where French company AREVA is mining, would have been a

country of preference to work on. However, major safety problems and large infrastructural problems

led us to decide to rather focus on other countries. Gabon, where there is no current active uranium

mining, but AREVAs unmanaged, uncontrolled, and abandoned tailings which have polluted a region,

would have been an interesting case for us, too. Yet the fact that there is no current uranium

exploitation made the country less interesting for this project. Many countries, even more sites, and an

even larger number of companies are not mentioned in this report. By choosing a few countries where

uranium mining operations are a major influencing factor in national economies and societies, it was

possible to get a profound insight into how mining practices in Africa can function.

Namibia is a major uranium producer which is receiving much attention from the mining industry.

Mining licences have been issued in large numbers during the Uranium Rush after 2005. South Africa

produces uranium and has a large mining industry and a long mining history, which makes it

interesting to see how the country is managing its wealth and negative mining impacts. The Central

African Republic will soon see its first uranium mine. In this economically underdeveloped country, the

commissioning phase of a French-owned uranium mine is particularly interesting to observe.

Aim of the research project was to have all questions answered, to get a thorough insight in the

uranium mining industry in Africa. In order to obtain a complete image of the operations, all majorstakeholders were given a fair chance to have their data and views taken into account in this report.

An extensive questionnaire was sent to various stakeholders. Data were obtained from three different

parties: national governments, mining companies, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The

roles of responsible companies and governments concerned are obvious: the companies will have the

legal, societal, and moral obligation to behave responsibly; and it is the role of a government to ensure

national interests in the broadest way: not only financially/economically, but certainly also socially, and

environmentally. Yet non-governmental organisations have an important role, too: they can remind

both parties of their obligations, create awareness amongst the public (including voters), and have an

important role as watchdogs. Therefore, NGOs were interviewed to verify the evidence provided by

companies and governments, and to view the operations from an entirely different perspective. Forevery mine considered, the responsible company, national governments, and NGOs, were all asked to

fill out the questionnaire concerning that specific mining operation. In addition to this, these

stakeholders were approached and asked to meet us. Interviews would be based on the questionnaire

but would often focus on a few themes, depending on the mining operation and on the expertise of the

interviewee. Interviews were carried out in Belgium, the Central African Republic, South Africa, and

Namibia. Some interviewees were interviewed through telephone or via Skype.

To ensure that the information on the mining operations was correctly cited, the industry-parts of the

report were reviewed by the mining companies themselves. This mechanism was used to avoid that

the researchers had misunderstood or incorrectly cited the mining companies. The companies were all

given two weeks to read and comment on the information in the Industry Response chapters. Eachcompany only received those paragraphs which specifically described the information on their own


9/105

Uranium from Africa

8

mining operations. The information in these chapters is based on information from the companies

themselves (websites, reports, publications, interviews) and could not be verified by the researchers.

Thus: if an Industry Response chapter states that a mining company consumes an annual X amount

of water, then this is not based on calculations or assumptions by the researchers, yet it is information

that was given by the company. Companies could not review other parts of the report than those that

directly cited their own information. The review period was meant as an opportunity for companies to

prevent any factual errors from being written about specific operations. Nevertheless, some

companies eventually sent us large amounts of new additional information during the review period.

Most of this information is included in the report. In one case, no company information was provided at

all during twelve months of research and regular communication over email, but just days after closure

of the final review period the company e-mailed a large amount of new, previously undisclosed,

information. Where possible, this last minute-information is included in the Industry Response chapter

for that company.

Many stakeholders (from industry, government, and non-governmental organisations, NGOs) declared

that they had no time to provide us with all the written answers, or even a few, and preferred to direct

us to their websites and have an interview with us. Interview durations varied from 30 minutes to 1.5

hours. Additional information (websites, publications) was sought through the internet.

The questionnaire was the foundation of the research project. Its length proved to be challenging for

all of the stakeholders approached, yet the complexity of the issues, combined with the large impact of

uranium mining operations, could not be covered properly by a short list of questions.

The questionnaire has several topics:

General policies, which concern agreements with host governments, documentation, certification,

stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanisms, closure planning.

Economy looks into economic impacts and revenue transparency. The economic part on revenues

and revenue transparency was used for the report Radioactive Revenues, a joint SOMO/WISEpublication published in February 2011.

Environment, impacts from mining in general, and uranium mining specifically, are discussed. Special

attention is given to tailings, the mining waste. Piles of waste rock and ponds of tailings are toxic and

radioactive and need to be handled with special care. Isolation from the environment is required.

Questions are asked about energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water consumption,

biodiversity, radiological surveys in the region.

Labour rights covers issues such as number of workforce, ethnicity and gender, discrimination,

strikes, lock-outs, wages, occupational health and safety, and radiation protection for workers.

Society considers participation of indigenous peoples and communities; Free, Prior, and Informed

Consent, forced resettlements, security forces, public policy, corruption and compliance.

The entire questionnaire is included in Appendix I.

The structure of this report is as follows: the three African countries are treated in separate chapters.

In these chapters, first the mines are described, and the associated companies. In the Industry

Response paragraphs, companies are cited. The information in the industry response paragraphs is

all information directly coming from the company (unless indicated otherwise). The Government

Response paragraphs describe governments responses to the questionnaire about the mining

operations. If possible, we tried to find government answers to specific mining operations, but most

often, the information from governments is merged together as mine-specific information was not

provided. In the NGO Response paragraph, the reactions and answers from non -governmental

organisations (NGOs) are described. Again, if possible, mine-specific answers were obtained andcited. Whenever this was not possible, information was merged together. This implies that the


10/105

Research Question and Methodology 9

companies treated in the industry section above cannot always be held responsible for all problems

described by the NGOs. In those cases, the reader does get a valuable impression from general

mining-related issues in the country, and on how the NGOs perceive the mining industrys Corporate

Social Responsibility (CSR) programmes, environmental mitigation, and communication withcommunities in their country or region. In every paragraph, it should be clear if any indicated issues

are linked with a certain company, with the (uranium) mining companies in general, or with broader

societal issues for which a mining company described in this report is not solely responsible.

After the African countries, reference is made to uranium mining practices in Canada and Australia. In

a short comparison, the answer is given to the question: are all uranium mining-related issues

managed well in these regulated countries?

Conclusions follow after all five countries are described. In the Appendices, the entire questionnaire

which was sent to the stakeholders is reproduced, as is some additional information.


11/105

Uranium from Africa

10

3. About WISE and SOMO

This research project was performed by WISE, in collaboration with SOMO, in 2010 and 2011.

WISE, the World Information Service on Energy, is a grassroots network of anti-nuclear organisations

operating worldwide. Since 1978, WISE does research, monitors the nuclear industry, informs and

mobilises citizens, and supports local organisations who are in need of information or financial

resources for actions. This research project was performed by WISE-Amsterdam in the Netherlands,

with support of the WISE Uranium Project. WISE has worked on uranium mining issues since the

beginning. Increased uranium mining operations in Africa have led WISE to intensify its activities on

African uranium mining. In the future, WISE aims to intensify its contacts with African non-

governmental organisations (NGOs) to share knowledge on uranium mining issues, and build

capacity.

SOMO, the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations, is an independent, non-profit researchand network organisation working on social, ecological and economic issues related to sustainable

development. Since 1973, the organisation investigates multinational corporations and the

consequences of their activities for people and the environment around the world. SOMO is based in

Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

The project was financed with a subsidy from the Dutch government. The Dutch government cannot

be held accountable for the contents of this report. All information and views expressed in this report

are those of SOMO and WISE.


12/105

Energy, Uranium, and Mining 11

4. Energy, Uranium, and Mining

4.1 Nuclear Energy in the Future Energy Mix

An ever-growing demand for energy is driving the world to seek for ways to expand its energy

production. Innovative technologies for the exploitation of a wide range of energy sources are being

developed at a high pace. International pressure on governments and industry to decrease their

carbon emissions, as well as growing concern about the limits to fossil fuel reserves, has led to

increased attention for alternatives to fossil sources of energy. Although oil, natural gas, and coal are

still the main ingredients to fulfil our energy needs, in the longer term the transition to other energy

sources will be inevitable.

Everyone will agree that the ideal source of energy is always available, cheap, reliable, renewable,and non-polluting to the environment. The renewable sources of sun, wind, and water are believed by

many to be these ideal sources of energy, especially when used in combination with one another to

guarantee constant supply and low prices. However, the currently existing infrastructures,

technologies, economic and political systems are not fit for a fast transition to these sustainable

energy sources, and in the past decades, advocates for renewable energy have often found that

reality does not easily adjust to their ideas. Technological innovation is no linear process: technical

and nontechnical aspects both play an important role in whether or not a certain technology is

successfully applied.2

Apart from the practical reasons why a transition to sustainable sources of

energy is a long-term process, there is also a conflict in beliefs on what is achievable. Where optimists

explain how societies can achieve a 100% sustainable energy production within decades,3

others

provide scenarios4

that show the opposite: the renewable sources alone will not be capable to providesufficient energy for our energy-intensive economies. These scenarios conclude that societies will

have to rely on fossil fuels and nuclear power, at least for the decades to come.

In this current discussion, nuclear power is subject to more discussion than it had been for twenty

years. Widespread public resistance against nuclear power was an important reason for politicians in

democratic countries to not have any new nuclear installations constructed in their countries for nearly

three decades, and the subject was not much-discussed. But now that the debate on energy issues

has changed, some countries are reconsidering their choice to not invest in nuclear power. With an

increased necessity to not only reduce dependency on fossil fuels, but also to reduce carbon

emissions, the nuclear industry has found that it has two advantages to offer. First, the natural

resource needed for nuclear power production is, contrary to some fossil resources, still abundant.This resource is uranium.

Uranium is a naturally occurring element, which is extracted from ores and undergoes processing

before it can produce electric energy. Natural uranium can be found in many different countries. The

element is not a renewable resource. However, this is less of an urgent problem in uranium than it is in

2See Making Technology Work. Applications in Energy and the Environment. J.M. Deutch and R.K. Lester, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 2004.

3E.g..Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook. Greenpeace/European Renewable Energy Council, 2010.[Also: Europes Share of the Climate Change, 2009: 100% renewable energy (RES) scenario. Friends of the Earth Europe]

4 E.g. World Energy Outlook 2010. International Energy Agency. Also: Power Choices, 2010: Power Choices scenario.Eurelectric.


13/105

Uranium from Africa

12

fossil resources such as oil. The reason for this is that resources are still perceived to be large.5

Like

scenarios, predictions on future exploitation of resources are always subject to great uncertainty, but

at the moment, the International Atomic Energy Agency expects uranium resources to suffice for at

least another 100 years of continued nuclear power production.6

The second trump of nuclear advocates in the energy debate is carbon. Here, nuclear power is

performing better than fossil fuels: electricity production based on nuclear technologies produces

fewer carbon emissions than production that is based on burning fossil fuels.Nevertheless, it must be

underlined that the claim nuclear power is carbon-free is delusional: only the step in the nuclear

reactor of the nuclear energy production chain does not emit any carbon.7

Various energy-intensive,

carbon-emitting processes are needed to transform naturally occurring uranium into the uranium

needed in a nuclear power plant. Emissions of greenhouse gases also occur during plant construction

and plant decommissioning.8

Compared to the renewable energy sources, nuclear electricity

generation performs worse in terms of carbon emissions. For a comparison of emissions by various

producers of electricity, please see B.K. Sovacools table below. Please note that this table is based

on the mean calculated emissions from 19 studies on greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear plants.9

5

See World Nuclear Association website. The 2007 Known Recoverable Resources are estimated at 5,469,000 tonnes ofUranium (World total) at a Uranium price of 130 US$/kg, whereas World civil plus estimated naval demand in 2010 was onlyslightly more than 70,000 tonnes.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlViewed 31 May 2011.

6 See International Atomic Energy Agencys Red Book: Uranium Resources, Production and Demand 2010. Or see online the

IAEA website. http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/RTC-Ghana-2010/5.RedBook.pdfViewed 13 April 2011.

7For a graphic overview of the nuclear energy chain, please see Appendix 2

8See B.K. Sovacool, Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions for nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, Volume 36,Issue 8, August 2008, pp. 2950-2963. Depending on the energy sources and production methods used in the various stepsof the nuclear energy production chain, amounts of greenhouse gas emitted per kWh of nuclear power vary. (E.g. if theenergy used in an enrichment plant comes from coal fired power plants, greenhouse gas emissions for that specific step willbe high. This will add to the total performance of nuclear power.) Please note that one of the steps nuclear powerproduction in a nuclear power plant is indeed not emitting any greenhouse gases, which gives ground to misleading claimsthat nuclear energy is CO2-free. Frontend processes, such as mining and milling, and conversion and enrichment, are thesteps in the chain that require most energy (pp.2957). Using the findings of various Life Cycle Analyses for nuclear powerplants, Sovacool shows that the mean value of emissions over the course of the lifetime of a nuclear reactor is 66 grams ofCO2 emitted per kWh of nuclear energy produced.

9 See B.K. Sovacool, Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions for nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, Volume 36,Issue 8, August 2008, pp. 2950-2963.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/RTC-Ghana-2010/5.RedBook.pdfhttp://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/RTC-Ghana-2010/5.RedBook.pdfhttp://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/NEFW/documents/RawMaterials/RTC-Ghana-2010/5.RedBook.pdfhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html


14/105


Table 1: Lifecycle estimates for electricity generators10

(by B.K. Sovacool)

Technology Capacity/configuration/fuel Estimate (gCO2e/kWh)

Wind 2.5 MW, offshore 9

Hydroelectric 3.1 MW, reservoir 10

Wind 1.5 MW, onshore 10

Biogas Anaerobic digestion 11

Hydroelectric 300 kW, run-of-river 13

Solar thermal 80 MW, parabolic trough 13

Biomass Forest wood Co-combustion with hard coal 14

Biomass Forest wood steam turbine 22

Biomass Short rotation forestry Co-combustion with hard coal 23

Biomass FOREST WOOD reciprocating engine 27

Biomass Waste wood steam turbine 31

Solar PV Polycrystalline silicone 32

Biomass Short rotation forestry steam turbine 35

Geothermal 80 MW, hot dry rock 38

Biomass Short rotation forestry reciprocating engine 41

Nuclear Various reactor types 66

Natural gas Various combined cycle turbines 443

Fuel cell Hydrogen from gas reforming 664

Diesel Various generator and turbine types 778

Heavy oil Various generator and turbine types 778

Coal Various generator types with scrubbing 960

Coal Various generator types without scrubbing 1050

Confronted with the high future energy need argument, the availability of commodity argument andthe zero carbon argument, combined with the traditional pro-nuclear arguments, some governments

have shown to be susceptible to the option of future reliance on nuclear energy. The shifted debate,

combined with a less informed and less sceptic public have led several governments to decide in

favour of having more nuclear power plants constructed in their countries, as well as extending the

lives of the ones that are currently in operation. Emerging economy China, which foresees high energy

demand in the near future, might have several new reactors built although much of its energy

investments will go to renewable energy. Chinas character as a non-democratic state, where civil

societys concerns play a minimal role in decision-making procedures, facilitates the choice for

nuclear. Pre-Fukushima, leading uranium producing company Cameco expected 104 new reactors will

come into operation by 2020, of which at least half would be in China11

.

Yet after a few years of slow steps towards greater acceptance of an increased share of nuclear into

the world energy mix, the recent problems with nuclear power plant Fukushima following the March

2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan have reminded public and policy-makers of some of the

disadvantages of nuclear power. The Fukushima events caused a sudden suspension of approval for

10Table reproduced with kind permission of the author. The entire table is taken and reproduced without any changes fromB.K. Sovacool, Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions for nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy, Volume 36, Issue8, August 2008, pp. 2950-2963. Please note B.K. Sovacools caption: Wind, hydroelectric, biogas, solar thermal, biomass,and geothermal, estimates taken from Pehnt (2006). Diesel, heavy oil, coal with scrubbing, coal without scrubbing, naturalgas, and fuel cell estimates taken and Gagnon et al. (2002). Solar PV estimates taken from Pthenakis et al. (2008). Nuclearis taken from this study. Estimates have been rounded to the nearest whole number. References to the authors mentionedcan be found in the References part of this report.

11 Cameco Eyes Chinese Uranium Needs, Creamer Media on Mining Weekly.com. 18 February 2011. Viewed 20 February

2011 onhttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-home
http://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-home


15/105

Uranium from Africa

14

nuclear power projects in China, and medium- and long term plans will be adjusted and improved12

.

That means that Camecos optimistic expectation about the great future uranium demands of China

might not at all become reality. And even if China will still decide to have some new reactors installed,

the countrys nuclear energy capacity may grow but then only to replace the retiring fleet from

Europe or North America.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster has had great influence on energy policy decisions in other countries

too. Switzerland will not have any new nuclear power stations installed.13

Massive protests in

Germany have led the German government to decide to phase out all the countrys nuclear reactors

by 2022.14

Japan, once one of the worlds most pro-nuclear countries, abandoned all of its plans to

have another 14 reactors built by 2030.15

Thus, even if some countries might have a few reactors

installed, they will merely replace some of the reactors that are, and will be, taken out of operation and

that will not be replaced. A net increase in nuclear reactors cannot be expected.

In the Netherlands, the Fukushima events have not led to any in-depth discussion or reflection by the

government on the desirability of nuclear energy. The government remains in favour of nuclear

energy, despite strong opposition by parts of the population and various opposition parties. The

countrys only nuclear power plant in operation has recently seen its operational life be extended from

2013 to 2033 and licencing procedures for newly to be built nuclear power plants are continuing.

In the debate on nuclear energy, usually the well-known topics of anticipated energy need, durability,

carbon emissions, nuclear safety, proliferation, costs, and waste are discussed. Yet most of the

considerations concern operation and back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Yet nuclear energy involves

more than what happens in the electricity-producing countries. There is a whole world to discover at

the front end of the nuclear cycle. Little do decision-makers and public know about the very first step

of nuclear power production: mining and milling of the mineral uranium.

4.2 Uranium Resources and Demand

Uranium, a radioactive chemical element and a heavy metal, is a naturally occurring element. It can be

found worldwide in uranium ores16

, in soils, and even in seawater. Unlike minerals such as gold or

diamonds, natural uranium17

is never easy to extract from the earth and the element needs to be

transformed before it can be sold to purchasers. At a mine, the uranium is treated chemically (milling

process) before the end product is created. U3O8,18

triuranium octoxide, is the chemical form of

uranium after extraction from its ore. Uranium ore concentrate, produced in a variety of different kinds,

is always the final marketable product of a uranium mine and mill. It is sometimes sold in the form of

yellow cake, a uranium concentrate which contains a mixture of uranium oxides. Yellow cake, which

looks like a yellow ocre coloured powder, contains at least 90% U3O8.

12 China Suspends Nuclear Building Plans. Website BBC News. Viewed 20 March 2011 onhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-

asia-pacific-1276939213

Swiss to Phase Out Nuclear Power. BBC News, 25 May 2011.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13549985Viewed30 May 2011.

14 Germany: Nuclear Power Plants to Close by 2022. Website BBC News, 30 May 2011.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-

europe-13592208Viewed 30 May 2011.15

Japan to Cancel Plan to Build More Nuclear Power Plants. Website The New York Times, 10 May 2011.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11japan.html Viewed 30 May 2011.

16 Oremeans an aggregate of minerals from which one or more minerals can be extracted profitably. It has two properties:

first, it is a certain volume of rock which contains a large concentration of a certain mineral, a mineral deposit. Second, thismineral can be profitably extracted from the rock. The profitability will depend on mineral price, on its concentrations, and onhow difficult it is to extract the mineral. Thus, i f a certain deposit contains uranium that is economically not feasible to beextracted, the rock is just called rock. If, however, it becomes economically viable to extract the uranium from this deposit,the rock is no longer referred to as rock but rather as uranium ore. For definition and explanation see: B.J. Skinner etal.(2004), Dynamic Earth. An Introduction to Physical Geology. Fifth Edition. Pp. 561-564.

17Natural uranium consists of various isotopes: uranium-238 (>99%), uranium-235 (


16/105


Although it can be found everywhere, uranium is mined only from those uranium deposits which

contain uranium concentrations that are high enough to be commercially attractive for a mining

company, the so-called reserves. Uranium resources, quantities of uranium that are available but

whose economic profitability has not been shown yet, or which occur in such low concentrations thatextraction is not profitable at current uranium prices, are very large. Any future limits to production are

not only based on limitations of uranium resources, but depend much on price limitations. If easily

extractable reserves, containing high uranium concentrations, run out, and uranium spot prices rise, it

will remain technically and economically viable to keep production high, even if ore grades at the

remaining deposits are low. It is thus likely that uranium mining companies will continue to be able to

produce uranium well into the future. Although future uranium extraction will be possible as extensive

uranium resources are still available in existing producer countries, nearly all of these resources are

very low grade19

(0.02 to 0.05% U3O820

).

Average concentrations of uranium in the crust of the earth are around 0.0003%21

. Depending on the

market spot price of uranium, the number of countries where uranium mining is commercially feasiblevaries. Canada possesses remarkably rich ores where uranium can be mined in large quantities, even

if the uranium price is low. Canadas McArthur River underground mine, for example, is reported to

have an extremely high average ore grade of 17.29% U3O822

. Australia has low ore grades, but

deposits are large. Australias Ranger mine has ore reserves that are proved to contain 0.21% U3O823

:

these are profitable reserves. Other countries have attractive deposits as well: Kazakhstan, USA,

Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Namibia and Niger all have rich reserves where uranium mining is

currently profitable, even though percentages of ore grades can be even lower than 0.1% U3O8.

Namibias Rssing mine, for example, has an exceptionally low ore grade of 0.029%.24

Canadas

Saskatchewan region has some remarkably high-grade deposits, but often the ore grades at currently

operating mines are below 0.5%.25

Following an increase in uranium spot prices in 2005/2006, more countries with low ore grades have

recently become interesting for mining companies. Especially if uranium can be mined as a by-product

(of, for example, gold mining, such as in South Africa), mines with ore grades lower than 0.1% can still

produce uranium profitably. As long as uranium prices are high enough, uranium extraction from low-

grade ores is economically viable. A disadvantage of low ore grades is that the environmental footprint

of a mine increases with diminishing ore grades. If resources are low grade, larger volumes of ore

need to be processed in order to extract smaller amounts of uranium, and more waste ( tailings) is

produced. At an ore grade of 0.1%, 1000 kg (1 tonne) of ore need to be processed in order to obtain 1

kg of uranium. Processing of larger volumes of ores leads the mines to a higher consumption of

energy, water, and chemicals.26

This implies that future extraction of uranium resources will inevitably

lead to an increase in environmental damage created by the mines, and to a significant increase in

CO2-emissions.27

19 Grademeans level of concentration.

20Percentages from G.M. Mudd, M. Diesendorf (2010). Uranium Mining, Nuclear Power and Sustainability Rhetoric versusReality. Sustainable Mining Conference, Kalgoorlie, Australia, 17-19 August 2010. pp. 321

21Percentage taken from report Reichweite der Uran-Vorrte der Welt, by P.Diehl, January 2006. Report commissioned byGreenpeace Germany. p.5

22Percentage taken from World Nuclear Association website, viewed 23 March 2010.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html

23Percentage taken from Energy Resources of Australia Ltd., Annual Report 2010, p. 13

24Data from P. Diehl et al. (2006) Nuclear Power: Myth and Reality. The Risks and Prospects of Nuclear Power. Heinrich BllStiftung. pp.119.

25Data from P. Diehl et al. (2006) Nuclear Power: Myth and Reality. The Risks and Prospects of Nuclear Power. Heinrich BllStiftung. pp.119.

26See G.M. Mudd, M. Diesendorf (2008). Sustainability of Uranium Mining and Milling: Toward Quantifying Resources and

Eco-Efficiency. Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 42, No. 7, pp. 2625-2630.27See G.M. Mudd, M. Diesendorf (2010) Uranium Mining, Nuclear Power and Sustainability Rhetoric versus Reality.Sustainable Mining Conference, Kalgoorlie, Australia, 17-19 August 2010. pp.321
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html


17/105

Uranium from Africa

16

As it is shown in figure 1 below, Australia, Canada, and Kazakhstan have large resources that are

recoverable even if uranium prices are low. Other countries, such as Namibia, only provide an

attractive uranium mining business case as long as prices do not drop below 80 US$/kg U28

(30.77$/lb

U3O8).29

Figure 1: Reasonably Assured Resources of Uranium in 2009.

Source: World Nuclear Association website. Viewed 24 March 2011. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

In Europe, uranium mining is now marginal. In twentieth-century Europe, hundreds of uranium mines

have operated. Germanys last uranium mine, Wismut, stopped operating in 1990. During the last

operational years of Eastern Germanys uranium mines (they were halted in 1990), production costs

were tenfold the world market price.30

In many cases, exploitation is no longer profitable: low uranium

concentrations in the ore combined with modest uranium spot prices provide an unattractive business

case for mining companies. In other cases, public resistance, environmental considerations, restrictive

laws, moratoria, and/or the lack of political will to allow uranium mining are discouraging uranium

mining operations.

The worlds 435 to 441 currently operating nuclear power installations31

consume around 180 million

pounds (lb) of U3O832

per annum (which is 69,200 tonnes of Uranium33

). Of these 180 million, around

75%34 are from primary production from mines the remaining uranium comes from secondary,

2880 $/ kg U equals 30.77 $/ lb U3O8 as 1 kg U = 2.599786 lb U3O8. For unit converters/calculators see alsohttp://www.wise-uranium.org/cunit.html

29To compare: the Cameco long-term industry average price is 68 US$/lb U3O8 (June 2011).; spot price is a bit lower, at54.50$/lb (June 2011) Spot prices have varied greatly in recent years: from 8 US$/lb to 120 $/lb U3O8 between 2000 and2011. For spot price history, see graphs at website Cameco.http://www.cameco.com/investors/uranium_prices_and_spot_price/spot_price_5yr_history/Viewed 5 June 2011.

30See P. Diehl et al. (2006) Nuclear Power: Myth and Reality.The Risks and Prospects of Nuclear Power. Pp.119 Heinrich BllFoundation, South Africa.

31Numbers vary slightly. See website World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html Viewed 1June 2011.

32U3O8, officially triuranium octoxide, is the chemical form of uranium after it is extracted from its ore. Yellow cake, which is afinal mining and milling product, contains of a mixture of uranium oxides that are produced in the process, contains at least90% U3O8.

33

Calculation: 1 lb U3O8 = 0.385 kg Uranium (or: 1 million lb U3O8 = 385 tonnes Uranium). Or see calculators at WISE UraniumProject.http://www.wise-uranium.org/calc.htmlViewed 6 June 2011.

34Numbers from World Nuclear Association website.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlViewed 3 June 2011
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htmlhttp://www.wise-/http://www.wise-/http://www.wise-/http://www.cameco.com/investors/uranium_prices_and_spot_price/spot_price_5yr_history/http://www.cameco.com/investors/uranium_prices_and_spot_price/spot_price_5yr_history/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/calc.htmlhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/calc.htmlhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/calc.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/calc.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.cameco.com/investors/uranium_prices_and_spot_price/spot_price_5yr_history/http://www.wise-/http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html


18/105


above-ground stocks (such as uranium recovered from surplus nuclear weapons). An average of 177

tonnes of U3O8 from a mine is needed per nuclear power plant per year. Approximately 208 tonnes of

U3O8 from a mine are currently consumed per GWe produced in a nuclear power plant.35

Secondary uranium stocks, now representing 25% of the uranium needed for nuclear power

production, originate from nuclear weapon depletion programmes or partly re-enriched depleted

uranium. These stocks are slowly diminishing. Uranium miners are expecting that this fact, along with

the fact that more reactors might be constructed, will put a strain on primary uranium production from

mines.36

Primary uranium production is planned to increase significantly in major uranium mining countries,

such as Kazakhstan37

and Canada38

, Australia39

, and Namibia40

. Whether expansion will indeed take

place in these countries depends on economic and resources factors, but also on political and societal

factors: in Australia, various provinces have installed moratoria on uranium mining. Strong public and

political aversion against uranium mining renders an increased Australian production not as likely asthe industry would hope. Primary uranium production from mines is therefore more likely to increase in

countries where public and politicians are less critical on environment and health impacts.

Worldwide exploration and exploitation activities have intensified since 2005/2006, when uranium

prices increased.41

Tables 2 and 3 show a World Nuclear Association overview of uranium production

in the worlds uranium mining countries and an overview of the worlds nuclear power installations and

their uranium consumption.

35Based on calculations from numbers of the World Nuclear Association website.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlViewed 3 June 2011.

36 Cameco Eyes Chinese Uranium Needs, Creamer Media TV on Mining Weekly.com, 18 February 2011. Viewed 21 February

2011 onhttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-home37

See website World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf89.htmlviewed 17 March 201138

See website World Nuclear Association.http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlviewed 17 March 201139

Various Australian mines are having expansion plans and mining companies are hoping that moratoria on uranium mining inseveral provinces may one day end.

40Namibian mines are having expansion plans and new mines are being commissioned.

41 For extensive overviews of worldwide exploration and exploitation activities, see WISE Uranium Project website.http://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html#UEXPLViewed 3 June 2011.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.htmlhttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf89.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf89.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html#UEXPLhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html#UEXPLhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/indexu.html#UEXPLhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf89.htmlhttp://www.miningweekly.com/page/americas-homehttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf22.html


19/105

Uranium from Africa

18

Table 2: Production from mines (tonnes U42

)

Country 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Kazakhstan 3300 3719 4357 5279 6637 8521 14 020

Canada 10457 11597 11628 9862 9476 9000 10173

Australia 7572 8982 9516 7593 8611 8430 7982

Namibia 2036 3038 3147 3067 2879 4366 4626

Russia 3150 3200 3431 3262 3413 3521 3564

Niger 3143 3282 3093 3434 3153 3032 3243

Uzbekistan 1598 2016 2300 2260 2320 2338 2429

USA 779 878 1039 1672 1654 1430 1453

Ukraine (est) 800 800 800 800 846 800 840

China (est) 750 750 750 750 712 769 750

South Africa 758 755 674 534 539 655 563

Brazil 310 300 110 190 299 330 345

India (est) 230 230 230 177 270 271 290

Czech Republic 452 412 408 359 306 263 258

Malawi 104

Romania (est) 90 90 90 90 77 77 75

Pakistan (est) 45 45 45 45 45 45 50

France 0 7 7 5 4 5 8

Germany 104 77 94 65 41 0 0

total world 35 574 40 178 41 719 39 444 41 282 43 853 50 772

tonnes U3O8 41 944 47 382 49 199 46 516 48 683 51 716 59 875

percentage of world demand 65% 63% 64% 68% 76%

Figure from World Nuclear Association, taken from WNA website http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html, viewed on

24 March 2011.

421 tonne U = 1.179243 tonnes U3O8
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html


20/105


Table 3: World Nuclear Power Reactors & Uranium Requirements43

,44

,45

Country Nuclearelectricity

Generation2009

Reactors

operable

1 Mar 2011

Reactors

under

construction1 Mar 2011

Reactors

planned

March 2011

Reactors

proposed

March 2011

Uranium

required

2011

billion

kWh

% e No. Mwe

net

No. Mwe

gross

No. Mwe

gross

No. Mwe

gross

Tonnes

U

Argentina 7.6 7.0 2 935 1 745 2 773 1 740 208

Armenia 2.3 45 1 376 0 0 1 1060 56

Bangladesh 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2000 0 0 0

Belarus 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2000 2 2000 0

Belgium 45 51.7 7 5943 0 0 0 0 0 0 1052

Brazil 12.2 3.0 2 1901 1 1405 0 0 4 4000 311

Bulgaria 14.2 35.9 2 1906 0 0 2 1900 0 0 275

Canada 85.3 14.8 18 12679 2 1500 3 3300 3 3800 1884

Chile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4400 0

China 65.7 1.9 13 10234 27 29790 50 57830 110 108000 4402

Czech

Republic

25.7 33.8 6 3722 0 0 2 2400 1 1200 680

Egypt 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1000 1 1000 0

Finland 22.6 32.9 4 2721 1 1700 0 0 2 3000 468

France 391.7 75.2 58 63130 1 1720 1 1720 1 1100 9221

Germany 127.7 26.1 17 20339 0 0 0 0 0 0 3453

Hungary 14.3 43 4 1880 0 0 0 0 2 2200 295

India 14.8 2.2 20 4385 5 3900 18 15700 40 49000 1053

Indonesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2000 4 4000 0

Iran 0 0 0 0 1 1000 2 2000 1 300 150

Israel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1200 0

Italy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 17000 0

Japan 263.1 28.9 55 47348 2 2756 12 16538 1 1300 8195

Jordan 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1000 0

Kazakhstan 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 600 2 600 0

Korea DPR

(North)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 950 0

Korea RO 141.1 34.8 21 18675 5 5800 6 8400 0 0 3586

43Footnotes from World Nuclear Association on this table: This table includes only those future reactors envisaged in specific

plans and proposals and expected to be operating by 2030. Longer-range estimates based on national strategies,capabilities and needs may be found in the WNA Nuclear Century Outlook. The WNA country papers linked to this tablecover both areas: near-term developments and the prospective long-term role for nuclear power in national energy policies.

44 Footnotes from World Nuclear Association on this table: Sources: Reactor data: WNA to 1/3/11, IAEA- for nuclear electricity

production & percentage of electricity (% e) 3/5/10., WNA: Global Nuclear Fuel Market report 2009 (reference scenario) - forU.

45 Footnotes from World Nuclear Association on this table: Operating = Connected to the grid;

Building/Construction = first concrete for reactor poured, or major refurbishment under way;Planned = Approvals, funding or major commitment in place, mostly expected in operation within 8-10 years;Proposed = Specific program or site proposals, expected operation mostly within 15 years. New plants coming on line arebalanced by old plants being retired. Over 1996-2009, 43 reactors were retired as 49 started operation. There are no firmprojections for retirements over the period covered by this Table, but WNA estimates that at least 60 of those now operatingwill close by 2030, most being small plants. The 2009 WNA Market Report reference case has 143 reactors closing by2030. TWh = Terawatt-hours (billion kilowatt-hours), MWe = Megawatt (electrical as distinct from thermal), kWh = kilowatt-hour. 68,971 tU = 81,338 t U3O8** The world total includes 6 reactors operating onTaiwan with a combined capacity of 4927MWe, which generated a total of 39.9 billion kWh in 2009 (accounting for 20.7% of Taiwan's total electrici ty generation).Taiwan has two reactors under construction with a combined capacity of 2700 MWe, and one proposed, 1350 MWe. Udemand of 1344 t is expected in 2011.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=306http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=308http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=312http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=314http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=316http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49a_Nuclear_Power_in_Canada.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=320http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=322http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=322http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=328http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=330http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=332http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=334http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=338http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf101.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=344http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=346http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=348http://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf115_taiwan.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf115_taiwan.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf115_taiwan.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/outlook/clean_energy_need.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=348http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=346http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=344http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf101.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=338http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=334http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=332http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=330http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=328http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=322http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=322http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=320http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49a_Nuclear_Power_in_Canada.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=316http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=314http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=312http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=308http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=306


21/105

Uranium from Africa

20

(South)

Lithuania 10.0 76.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1700 0

Malaysia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1200 0

Mexico 10.1 4.8 2 1600 0 0 0 0 2 2000 247

Netherlands 4.0 3.7 1 485 0 0 0 0 1 1000 107

Pakistan 2.6 2.7 2 400 1 300 2 600 2 2000 68Poland 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6000 0 0 0

Romania 10.8 20.6 2 1310 0 0 2 1310 1 655 175

Russia 152.8 17.8 32 23084 10 8960 14 16000 30 28000 3757

Slovakia 13.1 53.5 4 1816 2 880 0 0 1 1200 267

Slovenia 5.5 37.9 1 696 0 0 0 0 1 1000 145

South

Africa

11.6 4.8 2 1800 0 0 0 0 6 9600 321

Spain 50.6 17.5 8 7448 0 0 0 0 0 0 1458

Sweden 50.0 34.7 10 9399 0 0 0 0 0 0 1537

Switzerland 26.3 39.5 5 3252 0 0 0 0 3 4000 557

Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5000 0

Turkey 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4800 4 5600 0

Ukraine 77.9 48.6 15 13168 0 0 2 1900 20 27000 2037

UAE 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5600 10 14400 0

UK 62.9 17.9 19 10962 0 0 4 6680 9 12000 2235

USA 798.7 20.2 104 101229 1 1218 9 11662 23 34000 19427

Vietnam 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2000 12 13000 0

WORLD** 2560 14 443 377,75 62 64,37 158 176,77 324 368,29 68,971

billion

kWh

%e No. Mwe No.

Mwe No.

Mwe No. Mwe tonnes

U

Nuclear

electricity

generation

Reactors

operating

Reactors

building

On order or

planned

Proposed Uranium

required

Table 3, 2 March 2011. Table and comments taken unedited from World Nuclear Association website, http://www.world-

nuclear.org/info/reactors.html, viewed on 24 March 2011.

Estimates of numbers of future nuclear power plants and those of future production of uranium mines

continuously fluctuate due to ever-changing political, economic and financial developments. The

March 2011 overview by the World Nuclear Association (see table 3above) shows that there is a total

of 544 reactors which are either under construction, or planned/proposed. These numbers can be

deceiving, as there are large numbers of reactors which have been on the status planned/proposed

for decades. Meanwhile, no progress is made at these projects due to financial, technical, or political

reasons. The WNA numbers should therefore be considered as optimistic. Taking into account the fact

that many currently operating reactors will be taken out of operation in the coming two decades, it isnot unlikely that the current number of operating reactors worldwide will remain more or less stable in

the next two decades or that it will even decrease.

It will slowly become clear what the effects of the Fukushima disaster will be on future decisions on the

nuclear power industry. Immediately after the accident, uranium spot prices dropped around 10% and

investors rushed out of uranium stocks.46

Yet this sudden reaction does not necessarily lead to the

conclusion that this must lead to any long-term effects on the market. Uranium producer Cameco

stated in an interview: We do not anticipate significant effects on Camecos business in the short or

46 Investors rush out of uranium stocks in the wake of Japanese nuclear crisis. Creamer Media Reporter on Mining Weekly

Online. 17March 2011. Viewed 18 March 2011 onhttp://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-

stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17
http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=348http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=350http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=352http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=356http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=362http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=364http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=366http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=368http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=370http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=372http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=372http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=374http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=376http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=378http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=380http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=382http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=384http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17http://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17http://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17http://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17http://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17http://www.miningweekly.com/article/investors-rush-out-of-uranium-stocks-in-the-wake-of-japanese-nuclear-crisis-2011-03-17http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=384http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=382http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=380http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=378http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=376http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=374http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=372http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=372http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=370http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=368http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=366http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=364http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf102.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=362http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=356http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=352http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=326http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=350http://www.world-nuclear.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=348


22/105


long term,47

. The company CEO was also reported to say48

that no fundamental effect on their

business growth was seen, and that countries such as China, India, and South Korea are expected to

continue their nuclear plans due to their high future energy needs.

4.3 Uranium Mining, Milling, and Associated Risks

Once uranium is mined, it undergoes several treatments to be transformed into a suitable fuel for a

nuclear energy plant. The first transformation, from natural uranium to uranium ore concentrate, takes

place at the mine, usually during a process which is called milling. Uranium ore is leached with a

leaching agent (often sulphuric acid) to extract uranium. This usually happens at the mine to avoid

transportation of large volumes of uranium ore. After mining and milling, a uranium mining company

will sell their final product, the uranium ore concentrate, which is then shipped (usually abroad) to a

conversion facility where the uranium ore concentrate is transformed into uranium hexafluoride gas.

A uranium mines end product: yellow cake, a uranium concentrate that is packed and shipped in containers. Picture

from http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/4943940/-100-uranium-on-the-horizon.

Viewed 14 April 2011.

The hexafluoride gas is then transported to an enrichment factory. After enrichment, fuel fabricationtakes place: fuel pellets out of uranium oxide (UO2) are installed in fuel rods. Finally, the uranium is

ready for use in a nuclear power plant for energy production. After use, the spent fuel will be

transferred to reprocessing plants or temporary storage facilities. When the uranium can no longer be

used, it is disposed of: the uranium has now become the notorious waste that needs to be stored in

isolation from the biosphere. The picture below graphically demonstrates a simplified version of the life

cycle of uranium.49

This paper only focuses on the steps of the cycle that take place at the mine:

mining and milling.

47Quote from Cameco CEO Jerry Grandly, cited in Mining Weekly Online, Nuclear fundamentals remain unaffected, 14 March2011 onhttp://www.miningweekly.com/article/nuclear-fundamentals-remain-unaffected---grandey-2011-03-14. Viewed 14March 2011.

48 Ibid.

49 This picture is not entirely correct and does not represent all steps in the uranium fuel cycle. It is shown here to give thereader a quick, general impression of the use of uranium.
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/4943940/-100-uranium-on-the-horizonhttp://www.miningweekly.com/article/nuclear-fundamentals-remain-unaffected---grandey-2011-03-14http://www.miningweekly.com/article/nuclear-fundamentals-remain-unaffected---grandey-2011-03-14http://www.miningweekly.com/article/nuclear-fundamentals-remain-unaffected---grandey-2011-03-14http://www.miningweekly.com/article/nuclear-fundamentals-remain-unaffected---grandey-2011-03-14http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/4943940/-100-uranium-on-the-horizon


23/105

Uranium from Africa

22

Image taken from Global Environment, http://www.admwebstudios.co.uk/Energy4.htm Viewed 1 April 2011

Uranium is mined from various types of mines. First, there is the cheapest type: the open pitmineis

basically a relatively shallow and broad hole in the ground, suitable for extracting uranium from

modest depths. No shafts or tunnels are required for this type of mine. Dynamite explosions release

the ore, after which the large chunks of ore are then transported by large trucks to a crushing plant

and a mill(the uranium processing plant). Here, the chunks of ore are crushed into sandy grains. As

this is a process setting free large amounts of dusts, water is used to spray onto the ore to minimise

dust creation. The small grains of uranium ore are then leached: in a chemical factory, a leaching

agent such as sulphuric acid (H2SO4) is added to the ore. The uranium can then be extracted from thesolution and the uranium concentrate is manufactured. The uranium ore concentrate can be packed in

containers and be transported elsewhere. Waste products are the small grains of uranium ore, from

which most of the uranium has been extracted, mixed with chemicals such as sulphates. This is

disposed of at the tailings dams: the waste site next to the mine and mill. Around 25% of the worlds

mines are open pit mines.50

50See World Nuclear Association, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html. Viewed 6 June 2011.
http://www.admwebstudios.co.uk/Energy4.htmhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.admwebstudios.co.uk/Energy4.htm


24/105


The Open Pit of Rssing Uranium Mine, Namibia. (Size: 3000 m x 1000 m x 400 m, l x w x d)

Picture taken by D.H. Tramp, 2010. Picture used with kind permission of the photographer.

For the deeper deposits which are not easily accessible from the surface of the earth, there is an

alternative to open pit mining: the more expensive underground mining. This second mining type willonly take place if uranium prices are high enough to compensate high production costs. If the mining

method includes workers going down the shafts, extra care needs to be given to ventilation and

protection of workers, since workers are exposed to high levels of radon concentration. An additional

safety problem is caused by the shafts: in fall-of-ground incidents, workers can die underground.

Uranium extraction in the underground mine is similar to the open pit mine: ore is crushed, leached,

and uranium is extracted. Around 28% of the worlds uranium mines are underground mines.51

51See World Nuclear Association,http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html. Viewed 6 June 2011.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html


25/105

Uranium from Africa

24

Ezulwini underground mine, South Africa

Third, in situ leaching(ISL) operations are situated at sites where permeable rock contains uranium,

and this permeable rock is surrounded by impermeable rock, or clay. The mining technique differs

substantially from underground and open pit mining as no direct contact with the uranium ore is made.

The ISL method involves leaching liquids (such as sulphuric acid, H2SO4) being pumped into the

uranium ore through boreholes. Uranium dissolves in the liquid, and the dissolution is pumped up at a

lower level in the soil. In situ leaching does not require workers to enter shafts and human contact with

uranium is minimal. This technology minimises the exposure of workers to radioactive gases andmany hazardous materials remain confined deep down the mine. Ideally, all chemicals and radioactive

elements are isolated from the biosphere. However, natural conditions underground cannot be

restored during or after mining and there remains a risk that the leaching solutions penetrate

surrounding rock. Approximately 41% of the worlds uranium mines are in situ leaching mines.52

Many

of these are in Kazakhstan.

52See World Nuclear Association,http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html. Viewed 6 June 2011.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.htmlhttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html


26/105


In situ leaching

Picture taken from http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html#HEAPL Viewed 15 April 2011.

A fourth uranium production technique is heap leaching, whereby leaching liquids are released on top

of the uranium ore. The liquids seep through and uranium dissolution is extracted underneath. The

technique is used when ore grades are too low for uranium extraction in a mill (chemical plant). As

chemicals and radioactive elements are not isolated from the environment in any way during this

rough extraction process, the environmental costs associated to this type of mining are very high.

Groundwater, air, and soil in the mining region will be contaminated. Heap leaching is not commonly

practiced at the moment, but AREVAs new mine in Namibia will be a heap leaching operation.

Heap leaching operation, Pcs, Hungary (closed in 1997).

Picture taken from http://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd01e Viewed 3 June 2011.

Uranium can also be mined as a by-product: an operating mine producing metals such as copper or

gold can decide to exploit the uranium that is found in the process. This is less common in most parts

of the world, but it is not uncommon in South Africa.

An important aspect of underground and open pit uranium mining are the tailings; the residues fromthe milling process. Tailings are a slurry: the muddy waste consists of crushed ore and the chemicals
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html#HEAPLhttp://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd01ehttp://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd01ehttp://www.wise-uranium.org/uwai.html#HEAPL


27/105

Uranium from Africa

26

it naturally contains, mixed chemicals which have been added in the uranium production process.

Tailings dams are waste storage sites where all the ore from the mine ends up. Due to the large

amounts of water and sulphuric acid that have been used in the milling process, the tailings look like

giant lakes. As time goes by, water evaporates and the tailings will slowly dry out. Risks associated

with these tailings dams include distribution of toxic and radioactive materials through water and air,

and dam failure. Much attention must be given to tailings dams management during and after mining

operations, as toxic and radioactive elements can continue to disperse into the environment for

thousands of years.

Slurry Pipelines on Tailings Dam, Rssing Mine, Namibia.

Picture taken by D.H. Tramp, 2010. Reproduced with the kind permission of the photographer.

Mines always have an impact on their surrounding social and environmental landscapes, and uranium

mines are no exception to that. What makes uranium mining special is the fact that uranium has a

property that most other mined metals do not have: it is weakly radioactive. Uranium is an element

that is continuously and very slowly decaying: it falls apart. Hereby, ionising radiation escapes and

new atoms are formed. The process of falling apart and thereby releasing invisible radiation is called

radioactive decay. Natural uranium has three different isotopes53

: mostly U-238, but also U-235, and

U-234. The natural transformation of uranium into other elements is a slow process which lasts over a

period of hundreds of thousands of years. The newly formed elements are called the decay products

of uranium, also called daughter products. They, too, are radioactive isotopes, and all of them are

continuously transforming into their own respective decay products. This means that in uranium ore,

uranium is never the only radioactive element present. All decay products, such as polonium, thorium,radon, and lead, are present in uranium ore. All of these decay products are both radioactive and

toxic.

53Isotopes are atoms with the same atomic number but different mass numbers: the element (in this case, uranium) remainsthe same, but is has various atoms as the number of neutrons in the nucleus varies. When an atomic nucleus is instablebecause the ratio of neutrons to protons is too high or too low, radioactivity arises. This means that the nucleus changes froman unstable nucleus into another, more stable, kind of atom. See also: B.J. Skinner et al.(2004), Dynamic Earth. AnIntroduction to Physical Geology. Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., U.S.A.


28/105


Figure 2: Uranium decay products

Picture by World Nuclear Association. http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htm Viewed 11 April 2011.

The continuous emission of ionising radiation makes the process of dealing with uranium more

hazardous than dealing with other elements. Radiation is hazardous to living creatures, as it can enter

cells and damage DNA. Exposed to large amounts of radiation, such as when a nuclear accident

happens, the person exposed can die or develop diseases; cancer being one of the best-known

ones54

. When a person is exposed to small amounts of radiation, risks are smaller, yet still real.

As both the earth and extraterrestrial sources disperse radiation, every person on earth is exposed to

very small amounts of radiation, which cannot be avoided: these are the so-called natural background

levels. In addition to natural radiation, humans are also exposed to radiation caused by humans, suchas radiation which has been set free in nuclear weapons tests, at nuclear waste sites, or uranium

mines.

If one is exposed to small amounts of ionising radiation over a long period, there is a potential risk of

developing diseases such as cancer due to this radiation.55

Here, duration and intensity of exposure

are determining factors. The accumulation of radiation exposure, stemming from one or more sources

(human-made and natural) increases health risk.

54U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA website viewed 26 February 2011 athttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#riskofcancer

55 Information portal of U.S. National Institutes of Health, NIH website viewed 24 February 2011 athttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/radiationexposure.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ral.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#riskofcancerhttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#riskofcancerhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/radiationexposure.htmlhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/radiationexposure.htmlhttp://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/radiationexposure.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/health_effects.html#riskofcancerhttp://www.world-nuclear.org

uranium from africa

Documents